Beyond the prey: male spiders highly invest in silk when producing worthless gifts

Pavón, Camila - Franco-Trecu, Valentina - Pandulli, Irene - Jones, Therésa M. - Albo, María José

Resumen:

In the spider Paratrechalea ornata, males have two gift-giving mating tactics, offering either a nutritive (prey) or a worthless (prey leftovers) silk wrapped gift to females. Both gift types confer similar mating success and duration and afford males a higher success rate than when they offer no gift. If this lack of difference in the reproductive benefits is true, we would expect all males to offer a gift but some males to offer a worthless gift even if prey are available. To test this, we allowed 18 males to court multiple females over five consecutive trials. In each trial, a male was able to produce a nutritive gift (a live housefly) or a worthless gift (mealworm exuviae). We found that, in line with our predictions, 20% of the males produced worthless gifts even when they had the opportunity to produce a nutritive one. However, rather than worthless gifts being a cheap tactic, they were related to a higher investment in silk wrapping. This latter result was replicated for worthless gifts produced in both the presence and absence of a live prey item. We propose that variation in gift-giving tactics likely evolved initially as a conditional strategy related to prey availability and male condition in P. ornata. Selection may then have favoured silk wrapping as a trait involved in female attraction, leading worthless gift-giving to invade.


Detalles Bibliográficos
2022
Deceptive tactics
Gift-giving behaviour
Male choice
Silk wrapping investment
Inglés
Universidad de la República
COLIBRI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/43412
Acceso abierto
Licencia Creative Commons Atribución (CC - By 4.0)
Resumen:
Sumario:In the spider Paratrechalea ornata, males have two gift-giving mating tactics, offering either a nutritive (prey) or a worthless (prey leftovers) silk wrapped gift to females. Both gift types confer similar mating success and duration and afford males a higher success rate than when they offer no gift. If this lack of difference in the reproductive benefits is true, we would expect all males to offer a gift but some males to offer a worthless gift even if prey are available. To test this, we allowed 18 males to court multiple females over five consecutive trials. In each trial, a male was able to produce a nutritive gift (a live housefly) or a worthless gift (mealworm exuviae). We found that, in line with our predictions, 20% of the males produced worthless gifts even when they had the opportunity to produce a nutritive one. However, rather than worthless gifts being a cheap tactic, they were related to a higher investment in silk wrapping. This latter result was replicated for worthless gifts produced in both the presence and absence of a live prey item. We propose that variation in gift-giving tactics likely evolved initially as a conditional strategy related to prey availability and male condition in P. ornata. Selection may then have favoured silk wrapping as a trait involved in female attraction, leading worthless gift-giving to invade.